ThenNow

I don't want to misstate, but I think your response is based on one Scouter's opinion of how future claims should be compensated. I do understand your response to that idea. I'm not saying I don't. However, to my knowledge, this idea of "future" and ongoing "investments" as a means to pay future claims currently has no foundation in the case.

As with other mass tort bankruptcies, the case has a Future Tort Claimants representative and attorney (Future Claimants Committee or "FCC") representing their interests. Though we don't know how the Trust will be funded, how any of the abuse claims (current/future) will be valued or the future claims administered, you are right on track with your thinking. There is such an avenue in place, to what exact end I don't know.

Thanks. I was confused by the previous post as to how it would be detrimental to survivor claimants, now or later. At this point, the fact that the restriction game is being played makes life that much more difficult. From the assessments I've seen here and elsewhere, in addition to my own take, I don't think Summit is restricted. Acting as though it is and/or not laying all the cards on the table just creates more "animosity" and leaves another anchor in the water.

Would you clarify, please? Thanks.

I am pretty much in the “highly interested, but pretty much in the dark” camp, but I will hazard some thoughts. 1) They were completely taken off guard by the number of claims, throwing the entire strategy, whatever it was, into a swirling dive; 2) Pre-filling, they had a notion of what they would contribute to the trust and it was blown out of the water by the claims. Ditto for the Ad Hoc Committee of LCs, though less so as to the AHC other than the highly exposed Councils; 3) There is great consternation and disagreement within National about putting up High Adventure Bases an

Just now reading this. Having trouble pasting it. I believe it’s the second “here” link in the initial article I posted. Sorry for my ineptitude. It’s a good read so far.

Excellent point, duly noted and acknowledged. I admit to not knowing enough to blow my nose when it comes to the IVF. I’m learning a lot, thanks to you and others. That was an “and” statement, I will add. “...and procedures aren’t followed,” which goes to those who relocated and counted on no one checking to see if they had been previously listed ineligible. “Hey. You reported a Jim Dandy. Did he ever go by JD or J. Dandie?” Slippery people will always try to do slippery things and slip through the cracks, slippery or not. Just the same, not following procedures makes their slipperiness t

There is a point related to this that doesn’t get mentioned a lot. I’m not saying it’s the rule, but I think it’s important. In notable cases, and some of them egregious, Scouters who were deemed “ineligible” not infrequently showed up elsewhere under a different name or simply showed up and not cross-references as ineligible. Sometimes, they made a simple name modification or used an initial in place of a their first name. Other times, brand new name. There are a good many instances of this that I’ve found/read about. Again, this goes to the insidious nature of these men, mainly, but also to

The BSA is the client and they need to take control of fee review, case management, and staffing by the professionals (does the $500 paralegal do this or the $1400 partner?). The TCC has three members who comb through all fee applications from the retained professionals, ask questions, push back and continually request maximum efficiency. Any “fee bleed” impacts what survivors may get and they wear that fiduciary responsibility with sobriety. On the BSA side, I have no idea who’s reviewing bills or, since they’ve never been in this spot before, whether anyone internally knows if what’s being s

Indeed. I’m still trying to decide whether it’s complete incompetence, utter inability or unwillingness to manage the process and their side of the table, or both. I found this a potent excerpt: C. The Substantive and Statutory Rights of the Parties Cannot Be Trampled to Meet the Debtors’ Preferred Schedule. 27. While adjourning the April 29 Disclosure Statement Hearing may cause some slight delay, any delay is entirely within the control of the Debtors. Likewise, the professional fees incurred by the estate are entirely within the control of the Debtors’ counsel to manage. The Debto

Precisely.

Remember, insurance policies are assets. Whatever happens and whomever is “gone after,” 84,000 claims are on the BSA’s front porch. That will be the focus of public sentiment and perception, regardless. Also, I don’t think it’s been mentioned, but the TCC said something during the town hall that must not be missed. Namely, in all the settlement demands they have made on each of the entities/organizations, none of them were aimed to extinguish. In all cases, the demands left them sufficient resources to continue their mission, whatever it is.

I hope she does. It seems to me it's a matter of negotiating with people who will not "give" unless forced. Like the chart and the TCC's extensive analysis of claims, they have financial information and insurance assets assessments that can put things into the public eye and start leveraging people to act. When those two documents I mentioned went public, even just here, the reaction was huge. I want to see what the TCC has in open court and then see how the BSA, LCs, insurers and all other non-party parties can hide their heads in the sand.

1 hour.

Gah. Good point. I meant as to parents.